Motorcycle Fatality Statistics

[chevysoldier]

Saw this comment on a site from OR's latest Rider Down thread:

"~IF~ you are involved in an accident, the odds of you dying on a motorcycle are 33 (yes, you read that correctly, 33) times greater that you will be killed then if you were in a four-wheeled vehicle. This information is directly cited from the D.O.T.."

So I decided to look into it a little further, and found this report from 2006:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810606.PDF

"Motorcycle rider fatalities decreased each year from 1995 to 1997, reaching a historic low of 2,116 in

1997. Beginning in 1998 motorcycle rider fatalities started to increase each year. Since 1997

motorcycle rider fatalities have increased by 89 percent. NHTSA released a comprehensive report in

2001 based on increases in motorcycle rider fatalities for two consecutive years (1998 and 1999). The

latest 2004 data show that motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the seventh year in a row since

1997. This report is an update to the 2001 report and was written to provide insight and update into the

continued increasing trend in motorcycle rider fatalities in the recent years."

"More than 125,000 motorcycle riders have died in traffic crashes since the enactment of

the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

of 1966."

"Per vehicle mile traveled in 2004, motorcycle

riders (39.89) were about 34 times more likely than passenger car occupants (1.18) to die

in a motor vehicle traffic crash."

Motorcycle Fatal Crashes in 2008

http://www.iamvd.com/ods/2008mccrashes.pdf

These are some scary statistics. Maybe someone here on OR would be up to organizing an Ohio Riders driven motorcycle awareness rally or something?

Just some food for thought.

[NinjaNick]

Mathematics is at work here...

Motorcycles are more popular than EVER. Just like anything else, more people doing it, higher the statistics will climb.

More riders will always = more accidents/deaths.

[chevysoldier]

Mathematics is at work here...

Motorcycles are more popular than EVER. Just like anything else, more people doing it, higher the statistics will climb.

More riders will always = more accidents/deaths.

Oh no I agree with you there. One fatality (bike or cage) is one too many. Never gonna happen though. Just something interesting I found is all.

[NinjaNick]

I'm with you too soldier, I just wanted to post that to let people know.

Each time I ride, I hope I make it home and never become a STATISTIC.

RIP to all that have fallen.

[gixxie750]

Each time I ride, I hope I make it home and never become a STATISTIC.

RIP to all that have fallen.

Well said...

[chevysoldier]

I'm with you too soldier, I just wanted to post that to let people know.

Each time I ride, I hope I make it home and never become a STATISTIC.

RIP to all that have fallen.

Yes,

but remember

you ARE a statistic. Just on the other side of the spectrum. Just as long as we all come home alive at the end of a ride. Rubber side down!

[Giantxtc]

I agree with you guys. More riders more deaths. NOt to mention every state that has repealed the helmet law has had an even larger increase in motorcycle deaths.

[Strictly Street]

I agree with you guys. More riders more deaths. NOt to mention every state that has repealed the helmet law has had an even larger increase in motorcycle deaths.

Which could only happen if more voters wanted it. ie a higher percentage of riders in the voting pool. Again the statistics thing is at work.

[Strictly Street]

"Motorcycle rider fatalities decreased each year from 1995 to 1997, reaching a historic low of 2,116 in

1997. Beginning in 1998 motorcycle rider fatalities started to increase each year. Since 1997

motorcycle rider fatalities have increased by 89 percent.

I have to agree with NinjaNick here about the numbers.

In the first paragraph the article lists real numbers.

In the second it lists percentages, an increase of 89% sounds dramatic but the change in notation is done to throw off the reader so that they don't try to calculate what is going on and then follow the lead of the article.

Example 1997 = 2116 fatalities in one year

Some unnamed time period after that = + 89%

Is that an average percentage increase per year, mean, median or total bullshit number made up by my mom?

So was 1998 2117 fatalities?

It doesn't really say. But I'll bet this report has been quoted somewhere by someone looking for an increase in funding for something. Or to pass some kind of law about some thing.

It occurs to me that is the sole reason to write such a report in the first place.

Clueless politicians reading such reports come up with the strangest ideas.

When Elizabeth Dole served as Secretary of Transportation under Ronald Reagan she heard that motorcycle riders were being thrown from their vehicles in crashes. So with a straight face and no clue what so ever she proposed making seatbelts mandatory on motorcycles. Go figure?!?

[ReconRat]

I've been cruising the ODOT statistics website for a while now. There's some interesting information there.

Especially when you consider that it is OHIO information, and very accurate.

Statistics can be misleading, especially when comparing apples to oranges.

But information about motorcycles is there, and can be considered.

Motorcycle stats in general:

Crash when drunk = twice as likely to die.

No helmet = 2 to 3 times as likely to die.

Odds of dying in a motorcycle crash, one in ten.

About 90% of crashes are evenly split between a car turning into path, and just running off the road in a turn.

Injury types vary.

And oddly, having medical insurance = 90% less likely to die in a crash. I'm not sure what that is about, but apparently people with medical insurance don't die in crashes.

So as crazy as it sounds, if you crash a motorcycle when sober, wearing a helmet, and have medical insurance, your odds of dying might just be as low as one in 600. I'd say that is probably better than in a car. (And probably safer and less likely to happen, than falling in the kitchen or shower and cracking your head. A well known high fatality risk.) But statistics lie, and you'd need to apply similar rules to crashing the car. And I'm sure that would improve the odds for that also.

edit: Oh yeah, one more thing... something we all know and often forget about. There are stats showing a higher percentage of crashes for beginners. Basically those in the first or second year of motorcycle riding. And in particular, it is not at first, but after some confidence has been gained. Those type of statistics are harder to work with, but does point out the risks for beginners is higher. And my opinion, is that simply getting a new motorcycle, or borrowing one, puts a rider into this risk category. Even for an experienced rider.

Edited September 6, 2009 by ReconRat
added beginner risks...

[Disclaimer]

So as crazy as it sounds, if you crash a motorcycle when sober, wearing a helmet, and have medical insurance, your odds of dying might just be as low as one in 600.

That is an extremely interesting statement.

[ReconRat]

That is an extremely interesting statement.

And extremely misleading, as all statistics are.

Portions of the "one in ten" stat, may or may not already include the "if sober", and "if wearing helmet". That alone would reduce the odds from one in 600, back down to a simple one in 100. It's probably somewhere in between, and still relies too heavily on an unknown "medical insurance is 90% safer" stat. Since data on collection of data methods isn't included, it's just another something unknown to think about. And thinking about data on data just makes my head hurt again.

[Disclaimer]

True, that's another reason it is interesting.

[ReconRat]

on the lighter side...

If you ride a motorcycle, without a helmet, and you are drunk, and have no medical insurance, and you are going around a curve or corner, and there is a car that wants to turn....

You might as well just give it up and fall down. Statistics say so...

[gearman]

If you like stats, here's a bunch more: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/motorcycles.html

[oldschoolsdime92]

I've been cruising the ODOT statistics website for a while now. There's some interesting information there.

Especially when you consider that it is OHIO information, and very accurate.

Statistics can be misleading, especially when comparing apples to oranges.

But information about motorcycles is there, and can be considered.

Motorcycle stats in general:

Crash when drunk = twice as likely to die.

No helmet = 2 to 3 times as likely to die.

Odds of dying in a motorcycle crash, one in ten.

About 90% of crashes are evenly split between a car turning into path, and just running off the road in a turn.

Injury types vary.

And oddly, having medical insurance = 90% less likely to die in a crash. I'm not sure what that is about, but apparently people with medical insurance don't die in crashes.

So as crazy as it sounds, if you crash a motorcycle when sober, wearing a helmet, and have medical insurance, your odds of dying might just be as low as one in 600. I'd say that is probably better than in a car. (And probably safer and less likely to happen, than falling in the kitchen or shower and cracking your head. A well known high fatality risk.) But statistics lie, and you'd need to apply similar rules to crashing the car. And I'm sure that would improve the odds for that also.

edit: Oh yeah, one more thing... something we all know and often forget about. There are stats showing a higher percentage of crashes for beginners. Basically those in the first or second year of motorcycle riding. And in particular, it is not at first, but after some confidence has been gained. Those type of statistics are harder to work with, but does point out the risks for beginners is higher. And my opinion, is that simply getting a new motorcycle, or borrowing one, puts a rider into this risk category. Even for an experienced rider.

I agree with everyone here. Motorcycles are more popular than ever. Therefore more people are riding. I personally belive that the msf course should be mandatory. I see to many guys going out, buying 20k harleys, and saying, I rode dirt bikes when I was younger. In all reality all these folks know how to do is go through the gears. When that car turns in front of them, they have no clue what to do.

[chevysoldier]

If you like stats, here's a bunch more: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/motorcycles.html

Interesting read. You're right, there is quite a few stats, interesting ones.

Engine sizes of motorcycles whose drivers were killed in crashes went up dramatically in the last few years. Among motorcycle drivers killed in 2008, 26 percent drove motorcycles with engine size larger than 1,400 cc, compared to 9 percent in 2000 and less than 1 percent in 1990.

Percentage of motorcycle driver deaths by motorcycle engine size, 1985-2008

[Likwid]

Let me preface my post, thei thread is great and I agree we need to do a better job educating cagers.

*************************

Couple statistical notes, first and foremost the statistics deal with colissions, they aren't measuring if/how much less likely you are to be in a collision (agility, speed).

Secondly, I think a few factors are incorrectly being measured as causation instead of correlation. Helmet is a grey area, medical insurance is a big one. For either, one could ascertain that people with health insurance are safer and more thought conscious.

It's also likely since the bulk of bikes insured in Ohio are cruisers, male and over 25 any statistics that are used should be weighted and valued keeping the base demographics in mind. If males are 10% more likely to die in ALL vehicular incidents then for purposes of showing motorcycle statistics you should reduce or disclaim that base statistic.

End rant

[chevysoldier]

...Wish I had taken some statistics classes in school.

[Likwid]

...Wish I had taken some statistics classes in school.

I never paid attention in school, most of the stuff above is just from work experience... everyday someone puts together an analysis report and asks me to do something.... "We need to ask this question better, look how many people are abandoning the application!!!!" So I have to look at the data and then explain "Well, these people are X and they typically Y so they abandon at a higher rate, if we use this as a neutral base you can see this question has no impact on the results"

With these fatality statistics a lot of time it's a scare tactic, "OMG 80% of people on motorcycle die" well, by the time you account for the base demographics for people on motorcycles then compare these 3 factors you start seeing the picture that's being painted isn't nearly as grim as people make it out to be....

but all that said.... cagers need to pay attention!

[MidgetTodd]

Im gonna die sonner or later Id rather die in an epic bike crash that everyone will remember and think "damn that was awsome till he crashed" instead of die of old age depending on someone to feed me and give me pills and help me use the shitter but thats just me ?

[ReconRat]

Percentage of motorcycle driver deaths by motorcycle engine size, 1985-2008

When considering that everyone is buying larger displacement motorcycles in each of the 3 groups listed, this chart is alarming. It says fatalities are declining within the two lower displacement groups. Even just moving up to a 1000cc liter bike from a 600cc sport, will stay in the same lower group.

What would be the factors on a bike >1400cc. My first guess is simply the size and weight of the bike contribute to the fatality. Not just the slow response in handling and maneuvering, but the thought that the shear size and weight of the larger motorcycles might be causing the injuries. Meaning that when that extra heavy bike rolls over on you, it's not survivable.

[MidgetTodd]

When considering that everyone is buying larger displacement motorcycles in each of the 3 groups listed, this chart is alarming. It says fatalities are declining within the two lower displacement groups. Even just moving up to a 1000cc liter bike from a 600cc sport, will stay in the same lower group.

What would be the factors on a bike >1400cc. My first guess is simply the size and weight of the bike contribute to the fatality. Not just the slow response in handling and maneuvering, but the thought that the shear size and weight of the larger motorcycles might be causing the injuries. Meaning that when that extra heavy bike rolls over on you, it's not survivable.

id say the bikes in that group are harleys those guys dont wear helmets, alot that ive seen around here anyway shouldnt even have a bike they bought it for status and have never ridin before and go out buy a full dress roadking and leather pants a hd tshirt and hit the road literally

[ReconRat]

id say the bikes in that group are harleys those guys dont wear helmets, alot that ive seen around here anyway shouldnt even have a bike they bought it for status and have never ridin before and go out buy a full dress roadking and leather pants a hd tshirt and hit the road literally

Ok, I had to think about it. The latest HD engines are TwinCam - 88 cu in (1450 cc) and 96 cu in (1584 cc). And based on sales numbers for HD, I would venture that the >1400cc group is majority HD.

And I'd like to see that chart redone, with actual totals of bikes factored in. What percentage of all bikes registered are smaller than 1000cc? If we sampled our own 3200 member database, what would the percentages be for the 3 displacement groups?

[ReconRat]

Im gonna die sonner or later Id rather die in an epic bike crash that everyone will remember and think "damn that was awsome till he crashed" instead of die of old age depending on someone to feed me and give me pills and help me use the shitter but thats just me ?

Actually, I think that is the goal, since almost no one makes it that far. If they did, half would be there, and the other half would be taking care of them. Besides, make it that far riding a motorcycle all the time, would be epic in itself. There would have to be both a book and a movie about a person like that. Pretty rare.